perverting course off justice help, falsly arrested and eletronic goods siezed |
perverting course off justice help, falsly arrested and eletronic goods siezed |
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:26
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 22 Oct 2014 Member No.: 73,726 |
I made a complaint off crimal damage against a third party. I supplied cctv footage to police of when I first saw the 3rd party then the incedent and up to end cctv footage. I edited out 44seconds I felt had no relevance to the criminal damage accusations. the police new this was edited when they took the footage to which I even supplied the disc. it is obvious that the video is edited I didnt hide anything. yet I have been arrested and bailed. my cctv camera (with sd card) and laptop have been siezed. surely tjis cant be right ??? if id been asked to supply cctv or asked for it uncut. I would have supplied. I had not deleted original saved file from my laptop. I feel tjis has led to a invasion off my privacy as I have a years worth off personal files on pc. any help appriciated please
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:34
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
So what was on those 44 seconds you didn't want the police to see?
|
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:48
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 22 Oct 2014 Member No.: 73,726 |
|
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:49
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,238 Joined: 12 Oct 2011 Member No.: 50,335 |
Presumably you availed yourself of your right to free and Independant advice by a solicitor given to you at the police station. I very much doubt your brief would want you posting the details on an Internet forum so perhaps you should go back to them
With any questions about what is an extremely serious offence. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:54
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
So what was on those 44 seconds you didn't want the police to see? Me over taking on wrong side off bollard. And was that linked to your complaint of criminal damage? This sounds as though it might be a road rage incident. This is a forum advising on road traffic law and this is outside our scope, you need to get advice from a solicitor specialising in criminal law. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 13:59
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,755 Joined: 27 May 2011 Member No.: 47,031 |
Often the complainant is the instigator and perhaps suspicions arose from that theory?
Sounds like the PCoJ will end up getting dropped but expect some suitable charge coming your way from what is evident from your footage. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 14:03
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 22 Oct 2014 Member No.: 73,726 |
So what was on those 44 seconds you didn't want the police to see? Me over taking on wrong side off bollard. And was that linked to your complaint of criminal damage? This sounds as though it might be a road rage incident. This is a forum advising on road traffic law and this is outside our scope, you need to get advice from a solicitor specialising in criminal law. it was involving a traffic issue. I do not feel it had any relevance to my complaint. im awaiting solicitors paperwork then will be making an appointment once I have this as been told by other solicitors cant go to them till got that. Often the complainant is the instigator and perhaps suspicions arose from that theory? Sounds like the PCoJ will end up getting dropped but expect some suitable charge coming your way from what is evident from your footage. I felt they only used this charge to allow them to take equipment from property. I do hope so. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 14:24
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 296 Joined: 28 May 2013 From: Stoke on Trent, UK Member No.: 62,204 |
it was involving a traffic issue. I do not feel it had any relevance to my complaint. im awaiting solicitors paperwork then will be making an appointment once I have this as been told by other solicitors cant go to them till got that. You may feel it to be irrelevant. However, the job of the police is to investigate. They would be somewhat negligent in their duty if they ignored a 44 second gap, the contents of which may well add context to the rest of the case. And once you've shown that you're a) capable of editing the video and b) want to hide part of it from them, they have a duty to secure that evidence. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 14:28
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,389 Joined: 10 Jun 2010 Member No.: 38,126 |
If it were me I would post no more on a public forum as this is a very serious charge.
Talk to a solicitor. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 - 15:16
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,226 Joined: 3 Sep 2007 Member No.: 13,453 |
I'm not usually prone to supporting the Police/CPS but with a significant portion missing, the recording is borderline useless as a Defence Solicitor could hypothesise about all sorts that may/may not have taken place in the interregnum? With respect, your opinion about its validity/relevance is neither here nor there..........
Get a solicitor as others have suggested. -------------------- www.BMWEnthusiasts.co.uk
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 15:52
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Member No.: 13,265 |
Fro, what you have said you have not committed a criminal offence. Unless you have purported or said in a signed statement that the footage was complete or you didn't do what it says.
I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested and you should look at the case of Wren and if you have a solicitor make sure they do or sack them! |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 16:12
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
So what was on those 44 seconds you didn't want the police to see? Me over taking on wrong side off bollard. Well Keith, i trust you've told them why you edited the video since this is a public forum and known to be frequented by the BIB. You've even partially identified yourself! I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested So how do they seize OP's posessions they feel are pertinent to an investigation if OP says no? This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 16:10 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 16:15
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,189 Joined: 8 Feb 2011 From: Gloucestershire Member No.: 44,109 |
Fro, what you have said you have not committed a criminal offence. Unless you have purported or said in a signed statement that the footage was complete or you didn't do what it says. I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested and you should look at the case of Wren and if you have a solicitor make sure they do or sack them! An offence may well have taken place but perhaps not the one this thread is about. -------------------- Edited as my IPhone thinks it knows best and changes my posts…
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 16:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Fro, what you have said you have not committed a criminal offence. Unless you have purported or said in a signed statement that the footage was complete or you didn't do what it says. I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested and you should look at the case of Wren and if you have a solicitor make sure they do or sack them! Why does there have to be a signed statement for an offence of PCOJ to be committed? Why should he not have been arrested? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 17:55
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Member No.: 13,265 |
Fro, what you have said you have not committed a criminal offence. Unless you have purported or said in a signed statement that the footage was complete or you didn't do what it says. I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested and you should look at the case of Wren and if you have a solicitor make sure they do or sack them! Why does there have to be a signed statement for an offence of PCOJ to be committed? Why should he not have been arrested? As there has to be a declaration of truth (not necessarily a statement, but in this case it would be I would think) or the evidence has to be given in court under oath, ie: Chris Hune and Vicky Price. A person is not under any duty to incriminate themselves, so if he has provided the (edited) video and not claimed it was unedited etc then I can see no offence. I would suggest he should not have been arrested as on his account there is no offence of PCoJ, and further the necessity criteria under PACE was not met as he was a witness and would no doubt have attended to be interviewed voluntarily if asked This post has been edited by Red Devil: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 18:34 |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 17:57
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
You're confusing perjury and PCOJ. Whilst he's under no duty to incriminate himself that doesn't mean he can alter or destroy evidence.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 17:57
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,755 Joined: 27 May 2011 Member No.: 47,031 |
Fro, what you have said you have not committed a criminal offence. Unless you have purported or said in a signed statement that the footage was complete or you didn't do what it says. I would suggest that as a legal point you should not have been arrested and you should look at the case of Wren and if you have a solicitor make sure they do or sack them! Why does there have to be a signed statement for an offence of PCOJ to be committed? Why should he not have been arrested? As there has to be a declaration of truth (not necessarily a statement, but in this case it would be I would think) or the evidence has to be given in court under oath, ie: Chris Hune and Vicky Price. A person is not under any duty to incriminate themselves, so if he has provided the (edited) video and not claimed it was unedited etc then I can see no offence. PCoJ extends to more than signed declarations. |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 18:20
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 780 Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Member No.: 63,869 |
You're confusing perjury and PCOJ. Whilst he's under no duty to incriminate himself that doesn't mean he can alter or destroy evidence. I'm not seeing pcoj here. Op presented dvd to assist the allegation of cd. Going around bollard wrongly doesn't seem good but the op asked for help on another matter. Since nothings deleted or purposely unacknowledged where is pcoj involved . |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 18:23
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
You're confusing perjury and PCOJ. Whilst he's under no duty to incriminate himself that doesn't mean he can alter or destroy evidence. I'm not seeing pcoj here. Op presented dvd to assist the allegation of cd. Going around bollard wrongly doesn't seem good but the op asked for help on another matter. Since nothings deleted or purposely unacknowledged where is pcoj involved . The basis of the allegation (for that's all it is) is that he altered evidence, presumably to avoid prosecution for the keep left offence or to increase the chances of a successful prosecution against the other guy. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 18:49
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Member No.: 13,265 |
You're confusing perjury and PCOJ. Whilst he's under no duty to incriminate himself that doesn't mean he can alter or destroy evidence. No I am not at all. You can PCoJ when giving false evidence, as well as committing perjury. From what he has said he didn't alter or destroy the evidence, he presented the parts he felt relevant, although the continuity of evidence would have been adversely affected. As I said he only committed an offence if he presented the evidence as a full video clip, he says that the Police knew the footage was edited so how has he then committed any offence? This post has been edited by Red Devil: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 - 19:06 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:45 |